"In news from Capitol Hill, The House of Representatives has passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act by a 404 to 6 vote. Under the bill any person that uses or plans to use force to advance political or social objectives would be considered a terrorist. One prominent critic of the bill has been the academic and author Ward Churchill."

According to Ward Churchill:

Ward Churchill: "HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech that allows those in power to criminally penalize anything they considered to be particularly effective in terms of galvanizing an opposition that might conceivably in some sense disrupt or destabilized the status quo, so it's to keep everything in that nice sanitized arena where you're actually a collateral functionary of the state by participating."

.A close reading within an historical context – keeping especially in mind the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Presidential Executive Orders, pursuant to which the government has engaged in massive surveillance of its own citizens, as well as detentions, extraordinary renditions, assassinations, and torture – leads me to the following conclusions:

· This is a “Thought Crime” bill of the type so often discussed in an Orwellian context.

· It specifically targets the civilian population of the United States.

· It defines “Violent Radicalization” as promoting any belief system that the government considers to be extremist.

· Since the bill does not provide a specific definition of extremist belief system, it will be whatever the government at any given time deems it to be.

A few extracts of the Bill are presented below to show you its tone or “flavor.”

“(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term ..violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system… to advance political, religious, or social change.”

SECTION 899B. FINDINGS.

“(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”

“(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.”

Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. This will be an institution affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security. It will study and determine how to detain thought criminals.

THIS LEGISLATION ENDS THE POSSIBILITY OF A CULTURE OF REASON.

It is an attempt at legislative lobotomy of conscience. It aims to eviscerate ethical sensibilities of an entire culture.

Having usurped the power of war and peace, life and death, the Corporatocracy now bludgeons even the thought of speaking for conscience. This is State murder of the mind.
It is just too awesomely obscene for words.

The minions and hired agents of politicians are free to murder, rape and pillage on government hire using our money, but to imagine alternatives to them and the degraded, psychopathic political “leaders” who design and perpetrate these atrocities is legislated as a thought crime!

This is the legislated, politically promulgated end of man and woman as a thinking, self-directed being. Surely this must be the outer limit of “positive law,” that is, statutory laws passed by “Lawmakers.”

It further entrenches the Power Elite as separate from and above their “subjects.” It clearly demonstrates the paranoid delusions of the Establishment, pursuant to which it legislates a massive defense mechanism to protect itself from the populace that it subjugates.

I use these terms deliberately, because the so-called freedom of the vote has turned out to be a big con game. It is only the “freedom” to choose one set of thieves over the other. The blue suits or the red suits… all of them manufactured suits of the corporations.

Following in the train of this legislation will doubtless be internal travel documents, body tracking by subcutaneous RFID chips, neighborhood snoops and spies, rewards granted for turning in politically incorrect thought criminals, mass civilian detention centers – in short, the whole totalitarian control mechanism that we associate with the SS, KGB and other code words of criminal regimes. There will be “re-programming / rehabilitation” centers to correct errant free thinkers.

The infrastructure for this – especially mental conditioning – is essentially already in place. We have become accustomed to birth certificate (the government’s initial warehouse receipt), driving license, social security number, business and professional licensing, the Corporate Warfare State control of media, and recently announced, Google’s navigation to your house by keying telephone number into the web. Take note that the Department of Homeland Security already has more than 750,000 persons on its watch list.

For a glimpse of past as prologue, read Solzhenitsyn.

Who Will Be Thought Police and Under What Standards?

Who will define radical thought, and by what standards? For example, how about the reported millions who believe that 911 was an inside job, citing a mass of evidence from eye witnesses, physicists, engineers, and recorded statements such as “We pulled it,” essentially a confession by the building’s owner of the planned demolition of Building 7?

Will the writings of John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and The Secret History of the American Empire be thought crimes? Will this very essay be a thought crime?

What about Operation Northwoods, pursuant to which the Joint Chiefs of the United States planned for innocent people to be shot on American streets, for boats carrying passengers to be sunk on the high seas, for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched within the country, and for other depraved acts conceived in the minds of government-hired psychopaths? Previously top secret documents about this were released on 18 November 1997 and can be researched at www.wikipedia.org. Evidently, members of the Establishment will be permitted to engage in thought crime.

Soon enough, we will all be killing each other, and the statement of Mohandas Gandhi will be borne out: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Will thinking about cleansing the national soul of our atrocities – of Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, the advanced plans underway to nuke Iran, the crimes of Blackwater murders, the government’s domestic coercion and violence – be “Thought Crimes?”

Will it be thought crime to conceive of a domestic Truth and Reconciliation Commission pursuant to which high government officials are brought to book for crimes against humanity?

Will it be “radicalization” to think of alternatives to a government of, by, and for the Corporatocracy, which accumulates its vast wealth through the blood money of endless war?
What about imagination-consideration of a non-coercive society of free individuals acting in voluntary cooperation, what is commonly referred to as anarchy?

Would Thomas Jefferson be liable for saying, “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it …”

Will it be radical to conceive of preventing the Cheney-Bush cabal from launching WWIII and the incineration of earth through a false flag operation against Iran?

Would the likes of Mohandas Gandhi be jailed for saying, as he did, “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the State becomes lawless and corrupt.”

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT

BECAUSE WE PAY FOR IT

these “public servants” are only hired mouthpieces and puppets of the Money Powers who operate behind the scenes to orchestrate war, to coordinate the Military Industrial Complex, the Homeland Security Complex, the NGO Help-The-Poor Complex, the “Third World Corporate Development” Complex. In short, the Exploitation Complex.

They force starvation upon Indian farmers by their money printing press maneuvers to save their own hides from the overreach of blind greed. Men like those in Goldman Sachs who have the power to bail out their own companies and pay billions in bonuses while manipulating currencies such that basic food staples become priced out of reach of the rural Indian poor.

Let our excuse for the sorry state in which we find ourselves be not ignorance, for history is quite clear to those who would study. I quote founding father James Madison, “History records that money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance.”

Statement of Conscientious Objection

HR 1955 as recently passed by the House of Representatives is in effect a Thought Crime Prevention Bill.

This newest version of draconian legislation on thought control is where Jeff Knaebel says enough is enough. Speaking truth to Power, I say – I am not your puppet. I declare my self-ownership. Come and get me if you wish. If you wish to own my body, you will have to imprison it. I am breaking the paper chains by which I have allowed you to enslave me.

You see, it is all a mind game. The government is powerless before our non-cooperation. Of course, although an abstraction, it is a heavily armed abstraction. I suggest that nonviolent civil disobedience has proven to be the most effective method of regaining control of our lives. It has succeeded many times, in many places.

Our thoughts arise from within us, not from or through someone else. It is not possible for someone else to come between us and our minds.

Is murder an act that involves the human conscience? Can any other hear the voice of my inner conscience? Then, how can any such other claim the power to “represent” me in choosing to kill? How can such other “represent” me in determining which of my thoughts is criminal?

To say, or even to imply, that these people “represent” me cannot be described as an obscenity. It is an absurdity.

The following draws upon three writers of the mid 19th Century – Wendell Phillips, Lysander Spooner and Herbert Spencer.

Spooner. The right of rebelling against what I think a bad government is as much my right as it is anyone’s. It is nothing but tyranny to require of me an oath to support the constitution, as a condition for my being allowed the ordinary privilege of getting my living in the way I choose.

Phillips. The act of voting serves to delegate authority to an agent, and what one does by an agent, he does himself. Every voter, therefore, is bound to see, before voting, whether he could himself honestly swear to support the constitution.

Spooner. There can be no law but natural law. No human enactments can overturn the natural and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Legitimate governments must rest on consent. This contract cannot lawfully authorize government to destroy or take from people their natural rights, for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government – which is but an association of individuals – than to a single individual. A majority, however large, cannot agree to a contract that violates the natural rights of any person whatsoever. Such a contract is unlawful void, and has no moral sanction.

Spooner. The right forcibly to resist unjust law is inalienable. The constant fear of an uprising by the people is the only thing that keeps rulers from becoming tyrannical. The right and physical power of the people to resist injustice are the only real securities that any people can have for their liberties.

Spooner. The whole American revolution turned upon, and in theory established, the right of each and every person, at his or her discretion, to release him/herself from the support of the government under which he/she lived. This principle was asserted as a natural right of all people, at all times, and under all circumstances.

Spooner. A persons natural rights are his or her own, against the whole world. Any infringement of them is a crime, whether committed by one person or by millions – whether committed by one man calling himself a robber (or any other name indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a government.

THIS IS MY PLACE OF “LIVE FREE OR DIE.”

One must resist this legislation and this government, or else surrender one's humanity and become a dead thing.

If one cannot leave some “place” except by permission of the “owners” (passport), then he/she is a slave. To learn more about issues of expatriation and “man without a country,” visit my website at www.statelessfreedom.org. I have chosen loneliness, insecurity, and occasional bouts of fear over the guilt of blood on my hands from payment of taxes to finance murder.

My body is not the property of the U.S. Government. I will challenge the U.S. Government for ownership of my body, with my body itself. My mind will be forever free.
I was never the property even of my biological father, leave aside the absurdly stupid abstract concept of Nations — bounded by arbitrary lines drawn on maps — across which opposing armies of blood relations gun down the other.

I did not ask for US citizenship, and I will not accept its rules even if forced upon me. Suppose my birth under the system of Pol Pot or Idi Amin and their killing fields. Does this birth require me to uphold a regime of murder? Then, why would my birth in USA require me to uphold the murdering regime of Cheney-Bush?

Any situation in which I am not free to leave means that my presence is by coercion or threat of coercion. If I cannot leave some “place” except by permission of the “owners” (passport), then I am a slave.

The US State does not own the land called America, and it does not own anybody who was born there or lives there.

No bureaucrat has the right to define who I am — and the murder of which other person I may be forced to finance — by his stamp upon some arbitrary piece of paper.

I claim my freedom to respect the lives of others, as I would be respected. Freedom to do no harm, and to eschew violence. Freedom to express compassion in action. Freedom to support life. Freedom not to finance murder.

No other can hear the voice of my conscience, let alone “represent” it, or speak for it. My conscience will be muffled by no person and by no law. Nor will I ever knowingly aggress against another.

Right to Ignore the State

Herbert Spencer. Right to Ignore the State: Even in its most equitable form, it is impossible for government to dissociate itself from evil. Unless the right to ignore the sate is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.

The State is an organization that controls territory through force of arms. It claims ownership of all property and even ownership of its citizen’s lives.

The laws of States are not about ethics, but about the application of political power to control their subjects and to make them perform in ways which serve political interests.

It is self evident that if I ignore the State, relinquishing its protection and refusing to pay for its support, I in no way infringe upon the liberty of others, for I am passive and not aggressive. It is equally self evident that one cannot be compelled to continue support of a political corporation without breach of moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes, which is a taking of property against the person’s will, and thus an infringement upon his/her rights.

A person cannot be coerced into political combination without breach of the law of equal freedom. However, he/she can withdraw from it without committing any such breach, and he has therefore a right to withdraw.

An obvious implication is that the ethics of government, originally identical with the ethics of war, must remain akin to them, and can diverge only as warlike activities and preparations become less. – End Spencer –

I entered no contract with the United States after reaching the age of majority because I would not knowingly enter into a contract with murderers. I obeyed due to coercion.

THE RIGHT OF NONVIOLENCE IS A UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT

This Requires Conscientious Objection To Mandatory Citizenship

Great minds writing in great Universal Charters of humankind have said violence arises in the minds of people, and that people have right to life and liberty.

Yet, humankind continues to institutionalize the most bestial and degraded aspects of nature through State promulgation of the three great poisons of greed, hatred and delusion.

These great charters drawn by 'great men' do not grant a person the right not to finance the murdering State. This shows to me that these 'great men' were part of the Political Establishment.

To grant citizens the Universal Right not to finance war would put them out of business.

I would not choose to live in a violent neighborhood where local thugs and criminals were ruling the neighborhood by force and terrorizing the populace. I would not choose to associate myself with murderers. Yet, in the present system of the institutionalized Corporate Warfare State, we have mass murderers, thieves and criminals in charge of the future of all life on earth who are claiming to represent me.

“The idea of creating systems designed to threaten, coerce, and kill, and to imbue such agencies with principled legitimacy a façade of moral legitimacy, and not expect them to lead to wars, genocides and other tyrannical practices, expresses an innocence we can no longer affords to indulge.” ~ Butler Shaffer, June 2003.
.

What is the money calculation of love? There is no solution at the level of political economy. Former questions in the realms of philosophy and abstract ethics have now become questions of survival. We must reach for a higher psycho-spiritual level.

The revolution we must undertake to save ourselves is a revolution within our own minds toward loving kindness, truth, and respect for life.

I maintain that it is the right of any individual person to reject and renounce a government which violates his/her moral conscience. I maintain that it is my personal right, in this very body, here and now, to ignore the State, and to refuse participation in its actions which violate humanity and life itself. I also declare that the same is my intention insofar as refusal to pay direct tax to any nation-state. There can be no treason if one’s first loyalty is to humanity and to life itself. Human life is above Nation-State. Personal conscience and individual moral sovereignty is above State sovereignty. How can the question of treason arise when one refuses to murder innocent women and children? He who claims self ownership can never commit treason because the State cannot own him. He is not the property of the State.

“Once it is conceded that any man or body of men have any right to make laws of their own invention – and compel other men to obey them – then every vestige of man’s natural and rightful liberty is denied.” ~ Lysander Spooner

I have not entered into a contract granting the United States Government any authority over my life whatsoever.

To those who would accept a legislated statutory slavery, I say — may your shackles bind you without too much pain. May you go quietly into oblivion, and may you not burden me with the memory that you ever stood a watch with me on Spaceship Earth.

Jeff Knaebel send him mail is an expatriate American domiciled in India since 1995. He formerly practiced as a registered professional engineer, having been trained at Cornell Univ. and the Colorado School of Mines.
United Slaves of Amerikkka

On October 23, with little notice in the media, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill called “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” (HR 1955). Sponsored by a California Democrat, Jane Harman, the bill was approved by an overwhelming vote of 404 to 6 and is now being considered in the Senate.

HR 1955 is an amendment to the 2002 “Homeland Security Act” which authorized the most massive re-organization of the federal government since World War 2 and dramatically increased its repressive powers—for example, the placement of immigration agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and the carrying out of gestapo-like ICE raids around the country.

HR 1955 calls for establishing a national commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States,” along with a “a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.”

If passed by the Senate, HR 1955 itself would not change specific laws or set up new punishments—but it could certainly lead to and legitimize such changes. This bill is another major step in the fascistic moves in this country toward establishing “thought crimes”—making advocacy of radical, anti-government ideas and politics illegal in the name of the “war on terror.” And it’s yet another chilly blast right at a time when, more than ever, people in their millions need to confront the profound, repressive changes taking place before they are cemented even more firmly in place; to take responsibility for radically changing the whole dangerous direction that U.S. society is headed in; and to mobilize politically to end the war in Iraq and stop an attack on Iran.

Giving Academic Veneer to Repression

The National Commission and Center for Excellence that would be established if the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism” bill became law could give the government further official and “academic” veneer to use the labels of “violent radicalization” and “homegrown terrorism” to go after political activists and groups and dissident thinkers. The ten members of the commission would be appointed by the President and other high-level officials and bodies. And, according to the bill, the university-based Center for Excellence would be charged with tasks like “utilizing theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” (See box, “Responsibility and Moral Obligation Not to be Complicit in Crimes”)

Responsibility and Moral Obligation Not to be Complicit

Academia and professionals have a responsibility and moral obligation to refuse to be complicit in government’s repressive efforts, like those called for in HR 1955. And they should be supported when they refuse to be complicit. Currently, many psychologists in and out of academia are fighting the government’s demented use of their field and their professional association in pursuit of the so-called “war on terror.” The military has worked with some psychologists to develop and carry out the programs that torture prisoners held in Guantánamo, and then the military fought to keep the American Psychological Association on board with the programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported that the American Anthropological Association released a statement expressing its disapproval “of a year-old U.S. Army program known as Human Terrain System, which sends anthropologists and other social scientists to advise military units in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Academics should not allow themselves or their field to become an arm of the government’s unending war for empire.

What is so alarming and dangerous about this bill is the way that “homegrown terrorism” and “violent radicalization” are defined so that further basis would be laid down to attack and criminalize politics and ideologies that have nothing to do with terrorism but are considered dangerous and threatening by those in power.

The bill defines “violent radicalization” as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” It defines “homegrown terrorism” as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” And “ideologically based violence” is defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.”*>

Who Would Be Accused of “Extremist Belief Systems”?

The deliberately broad and ambiguous language used in HR 1955 is potentially a net that could be used by the government and the political police to go after a wide range of oppositional groups, individuals, and political trends. Who would be accused of “adopting or promoting an extremist belief system” and therefore considered subject to legal suppression—protesters demanding an end to police brutality, people calling for impeachment of Bush, those who advocate communism and revolutionary change? It’s not hard to see the sweeping implications of this logic—and it is very bad.

One part of HR 1955 states: “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.” This language in the bill points to possible future moves by the government to restrict flow of information on the Internet in the name of combating “violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and homegrown terrorism.”

Along with this warning about the Internet, the website of Jane Harman, the bill’s main sponsor, targets youth in particular: “In recent testimony before our Intelligence Subcommittee, some common traits and characteristics emerged. Said RAND Corporation’s Bruce Jenkins: ‘…it is the same age group that is susceptible to being recruited into gangs.... These are young men who are going through…identity crises, looking to define themselves….If you have a narrative that exalts violence, that attempts to project that violence as a personal obligation…that offers the tantalizing prospect of clandestinity, identity, all of those are very appealing to that specific age group.’ Combine that personal adolescent upheaval with the explosion of information technologies and communications tools—tools which American kids are using to broadcast messages from al Qaeda—and there is a roadmap to terror, a ‘retail outlet’ for anger and warped aspirations.”

This bill sheds further light on what continues to take monstrous shape—and makes it clear the Democrats will not only not stop it, they are the vehicle for making it happen! This year, federal prisons already tried to purge all religious books except a few pre-approved titles based on the same logic that is in HR 1955. They temporarily had to back off due to suits and the out-cry against this move. This month, during a talk by the director of campus safety and security at Chicago’s Columbia College, a film and video faculty member asked “for advice on dealing with law enforcement officials” because “she had recently been contacted by a FBI agent who wanted her to ‘report any students that have anti-establishment, anti-government sentiments.’” (“College Council focuses on security issues, columbiachronicle.com) And there have been cases where those carrying out political protest have been targeted as “terrorists.” (See box, “Government Agency Says: Political Dissent=Terrorism”)

Government Agency Says: Political Dissent=Terrorism

In 2003 a government agency called the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) issued a warning to the Oakland police of “potential violence” at a protest against the U.S. war in Iraq. The spokesman for the CATIC said at the time, “You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that’s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest). You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.” He also said, “I’ve heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn’t just bombs going off and killing people.” In other words, for this government official any political action that challenges the U.S.’s so-called “war on terror”—even a strike or civil disobedience—can be considered a “terrorist” act. (See “CATIC: Political Dissent=Terrorism,” online at revcom.us.)

There have also been increasing moves by police agencies to target Muslim people as a whole for monitoring and suppression, in the name of “combating terror.” A recent study by the NYPD declared “unassimilated Muslims” as possible “terrorists”; included as supposed signs of “radicalization” were things like giving up smoking, drinking, and gambling. And the “counter-terrorism” bureau of the LAPD announced a plan to map Muslim communities in the L.A. area. An LAPD spokesman said the mapping would help promote “moderates” in opposition to “fanatics.” The director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said, “Who is going to decide who are the moderates? Are Muslims who criticize the war in Iraq moderate?” As we go to press, the LAPD says it will at least temporarily scrap the plan due to the outrage it touched off.

The bill gives lip service to protection of people’s rights: “Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.”

This little paragraph in the bill would be laughable, if it weren’t so chilling, in the context of the accelerating moves toward fascist clampdown in this country, as the U.S. rulers have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and now are aiming at Iran. Note that the wording here specifically excludes people who are not citizens or legal residents—undocumented immigrants, those in the U.S. on student or other temporary visas, and others. And look at how Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was convicted on conspiracy charges earlier this year for what amounted to thought crimes—one legal scholar said, “As the Bush Administration is conceptualizing and implementing this conspiracy law, the fact that Padilla thought bad thoughts about the United States and its Government is enough to lock him up for life.” Look at the broadening of warrantless wiretapping, legalization of torture, the official and unofficial fascist offensive against immigrants, the surveillance and detention of protesters, the firing of professors for holding dissenting and critical views of U.S. policy, and so on.

All this is moving very quickly—and there is urgent need for massive political resistance to stop this dangerous trajectory before it is too late.

* This bill closely follows the framework set by the FBI and outlined in a June 2006 speech by FBI head Robert Mueller in which he interchangeably uses the terms “radical” and “extremist” and pinpoints campuses and prisons. In the 1960s, the FBI and other police agencies spied on, disrupted, and attacked mass political movements and revolutionary currents among students, Black people, and others. The kind of language being used by Mueller and others in the power structure has ominous implications for escalating repression today against movements of resistance. back

What is so alarming and dangerous about this bill is the way that “homegrown terrorism” and “violent radicalization” are defined so that further basis would be laid down to attack and criminalize politics and ideologies that have nothing to do with terrorism but are considered dangerous and threatening by those in power.

_________________We live in an amazing, amazing world, and it's wasted on the crappiest generation of spoiled idiots. -- Louis CK

We are going to have to stick a pin in a map, set fire to something and carry on until the earth looks flat! -- RandyMac

I could teach you to how file a washer to make it worth a nickel but if you really want to make big bucks just take a penny and drill a hole in it and it becomes a washer and is worth a dime. -- Art Martin, Old-Time Logger

Can I get a condensed version?_________________Core meltdown (commonly known as a meltdown) is an accident scenario in nuclear reactors, and is one of the possible modes of failure for light water reactors, during which the reactor pile turns into a pile of reactor.
---RationalWiki

If Jesus had existed, his DNA would have been 99% similar to that of a chimpanzee. Or you. You're 99% Jesus.
-- RationalWiki

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Granted the above section is pretty toothless since it is enforced by Homeland Security monitoring itself. But when people arguing against the bill just ignore this section it makes me wonder how closely they have actually studied it._________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend

Man hatte, could you be just a lil bit more long winded? Basically this is covering Bush's arse for when he rufuses to give up the power of presidency and label those who attempt to remove him from power as terrorists. I know how this works, I read the left behind series _________________"Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies."--Last words of Voltaire when asked by a priest to renounce Satan.

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson

I didn't write it. I didn't have a decent link, either, since it came to me via e-mail. Still, I do not like the precedent this sets._________________We live in an amazing, amazing world, and it's wasted on the crappiest generation of spoiled idiots. -- Louis CK

We are going to have to stick a pin in a map, set fire to something and carry on until the earth looks flat! -- RandyMac

I could teach you to how file a washer to make it worth a nickel but if you really want to make big bucks just take a penny and drill a hole in it and it becomes a washer and is worth a dime. -- Art Martin, Old-Time Logger

While I can see how people can get up in arms about this (snicker), doesn't this statement:

"Under the bill any person that uses or plans to use force to advance political or social objectives would be considered a terrorist. One prominent critic of the bill has been the academic and author Ward Churchill."

DEATHFORCE: There are certainly crazy things you can do with this game, you can generate a world that is 3 times the size of earth before it starts having errors, although I dont know how long it would take to generate a world that large anyways lol

TRASSIN: I'm guessing about 21 days? Assuming you take a break every 7th day or so.

Just gives me one more reason to do everything I can to try and see Ron Paul elected to office so he can veto crap like this.

That being said, I would urge everyone to contact their Senator on Monday about this bill since it still has to pass in the Senate.

Edit: Looked at the voting on this for the first time. Wow, it passed the house by a huge majority only 6 votes against it and something like 6 non-votes._________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend

Edit: Looked at the voting on this for the first time. Wow, it passed the house by a huge majority only 6 votes against it and something like 6 non-votes.

Hence the paranoia._________________We live in an amazing, amazing world, and it's wasted on the crappiest generation of spoiled idiots. -- Louis CK

We are going to have to stick a pin in a map, set fire to something and carry on until the earth looks flat! -- RandyMac

I could teach you to how file a washer to make it worth a nickel but if you really want to make big bucks just take a penny and drill a hole in it and it becomes a washer and is worth a dime. -- Art Martin, Old-Time Logger

1. Congress accuses the Internet of having facilitated, and continuing to facilitate violent radicalization, in direct violation of HR 1955 Section 899B(2), and reaches a verdict of guilty.

2. The National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism committee (Commission) (HR 1955 Section 899C(a)) is assigned to submit sentencing recommendations.

3. A university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (Center) is given the task of determining the best method/s for carrying out the sentence recommended by the Commission.

4. Step 1, the verdict is in. Steps 2 and 3, sentencing recommendations, and method of dispensing sentencing are awaiting completion. When these steps are completed, the next step is to pronounce sentencing.

5. After the sentence is pronounced, the final step is to carry out the sentence recommended by the Commission, and implement it using the method/s arrived at by the 'Center.'

Will the government take this to its logical conclusion and eliminate the Internet as we know it? I believe it will try.

_________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend

That's the most ridiculous and stupid example I've ever seen. The internet? The internet isn't an organization or individual, therefore it is not subject to this bill. They can go after those who use the internet to facilitate those ideas, but the internet can't be held liable. That's like banning reading and writing, and despite how strong you feel about where our nation is headed, things are never going to be that way. I feel like finding the person who wrote that and punching them in the genitals._________________"The cheese stands alone." - Madhatte

I'm pretty sure it was their attempt to make fun of how poorly written the bill is. The whole thing is nothing more than someone's attempt to say, "see, I'm tough on Terror (whatever the fuck that means), vote for me!"_________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend

_________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend

If you want to contact your Senator to tell them to vote against this bill they are back in session today.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm_________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend

Well, I contacted my Senator and it from the response I got, I don't think he's going to take me seriously in this. The response made it seem like he had already made up his mind about this one. I won't vote for him again. Here was what he wrote to me.

Dear B Jarod:

Thank you for contacting me with regard to H.R.1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.

Let me first say that I believe the United States must understand and address the ideological roots from which terrorists originate. This is a vital component of winning the War on Terror. We must also recognize that these ideologies are not exclusive to foreign nations, and take the necessary steps to ensure they do not take hold on our own soil.

As you know, H.R.1955 would establish programs and studies focused on the prevention of violent ideological radicalization within the United States. This legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007, and currently awaits action in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Though I am not a member of this committee, please rest assured I will keep your concerns in mind should H.R.1955 come to the full Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator_________________"Does this smell like chloroform to you?" -infamous pick-up line of Terrence "Brasa" Webster (R.I.P.)

It's 47 minutes long, but very watchable and relevant. Her essential thrust is that in studying dictatorships in history, there are 10 things that despots always do in the lead up to closing down a democratic society, and that all 10 are happening in America right now.

My initial reaction was that this was kind of a dramatic statement to make, but after giving the whole thing a watch, I think she's making an excellent and long overdue point.

I want to watch it but I'm on vacation at my parents and they still have dialup._________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend

Human ID Chips Get Under My Skin
The technology is available, but the potential for misuse is almost limitless. Our columnist takes you through the dangers of this futuristic process

by David H. Holtzman

Editor's note: This is the second in a series of perspectives on implantable microchips. The first appeared on Jan. 30.

While it's easy to reject the notion of placing little ID chips inside humans as an ominous Orwellian invasion of individual rights, I suspect it's inevitable that in my lifetime we will all have some kind of computerized implants. My problem is not with the technology, known as chipping, or with the companies that sell it. My concern stems from my lack of trust in institutions and lack of belief that the technology will be forever restricted to beneficial, socially acceptable uses.

Chipping involves implanting a transponder chip below the skin for identification purposes. VeriChip (CHIP), the one company that has gained FDA clearance to perform this procedure, has emerged as the process's leading advocate. The implant procedure itself is simple and mostly painless, accomplished in a doctor's office in a matter of seconds.

Generally speaking, the only data stored on the chip is a 16-digit ID number that cross-references to a record in VeriChip's database. Nevertheless the chip raises a number of troubling concerns:

Health. Before diving into privacy and security concerns, it is worth noting recent reports indicate implanted chips may have caused tumors in small lab animals, and therefore may be equally dangerous for humans. I am not qualified to express an opinion on the subject other than to note the FDA has approved the device as safe. Evidence to the contrary will probably take years to accumulate, and at that point, a debate would be useless to those already afflicted.

Privacy. Advocates of chipping often downplay privacy and security worries by stressing the chips merely contain a number rather than any actual personal information. However, that may be dangerous enough. A centralized numeric database storing information on a significant number of Americans begins to look a lot like a national ID card. But unlike an ID card safely stowed in a wallet, the numbers on these chips can potentially be read wirelessly by someone standing near you with an inexpensive handheld reader. Legislative attempts to establish a national ID, such as the REAL ID Act, have proven to be highly controversial. It would be a shame to have human chipping effectively short-circuit that debate and create a de facto national identification system.

Hacking and Misuse. I trust VeriChip, I guess. At least I have no reason not to trust them. But what about someone hacking into their databases? (Please don't tell me their security is absolutely foolproof—thanks to all the credit-card system breaches, we all know better.) All it would take is a careless employee to accidentally expose everyone's numbers to an ill-intentioned hacker. Since you can't reprogram chips already implanted, would we all need to have them physically swapped out whenever VeriChip's database was compromised? I also suspect it wouldn't be too hard to execute "man-in-the-middle" attacks that snag an individual's chip number for malicious use.

Consent. The leading candidates proposed for the initial rounds of chipping are people who are either unwilling or unable to give informed consent. While there have been a few actual instances of mandatory chipping—the Attorney General of Mexico forced his staff to get implants to gain access to a sensitive document room—most uses remain theoretical. For example, VeriChip has advocated chipping Alzheimer's patients as a way to help families find those sufferers who get lost.

Scott Silverman, VeriChip's chairman, has proposed mandatory chipping of guest workers and immigrants. A hospital in Ontario plans to implant the chips in babies, and the U.S. Army is mulling a requirement for enlisted personnel. The elderly, immigrants, babies, low-ranking soldiers…these are not exactly the most powerful segments of U.S. society. Compare this to new technologies such as laser eye surgery and non-invasive heart procedures, where the wealthy and powerful typically benefit well before the lower rungs of the social ladder. I am inherently distrustful of technologies that start deployment at the bottom of the power pyramid.

Unintended Consequences. Once implanted, these chips, and the associated network of chip readers deployed to work with them, will be around for a long time. Let's give VeriChip, participating hospitals, and government agencies the benefit of the doubt about being ethical and well-intentioned organizations. But who knows which agencies might be given access to the database down the road as part of new policy initiatives. Congressmen are notorious for passing legislation requiring the government to exploit existing databases for new endeavors, such as targeting deadbeat dads or delinquent student loan holders through the IRS tax refund system.

I can think of countless initiatives that could be launched to make use of a sufficiently large group of chipped people: a universal college student ID system; chip readers in cars that would block drivers with unpaid parking tickets from using their vehicles; tracking people with a history of emotional disturbances; court-ordered chipping tied to domestic restraining orders; government monitoring of people found to have a high-risk profile through computer profiling; outfitting firearms with a radio-frequency identification (RFID) reader and requiring gun owners to be chipped to fire their weapon (like existing thumbprint locks).

Once a sufficient number of humans have had chips implanted, for whatever the reason, all bets on containing the technology are off. A responsible debate on human chipping would consider the extreme scenario—widespread mandatory implants—and not just focus on the initial "socially acceptable" proposals that target specific populations such as Alzheimer's patients, children, or convicts on work release programs.

Reduced Expectations. Although there is no guarantee of privacy written explicitly into the Constitution, a century of court rulings has carved out some tenuous protections for Americans, most of which are based on the concept of "expectation of privacy." A widely deployed system of human ID chips might very well erode that expectation, weakening everyone's shield against privacy intrusions.

As citizens, we need legal safeguards ensuring that any use of this technology adheres to publicly acceptable guidelines. At a minimum, any chipping must be truly voluntary rather than mandatory. But I am afraid this will be almost impossible to ensure without legislation such as that enacted by Wisconsin last year, barring all mandatory human chipping.

Any potential privacy-busting technology such as this one must be introduced with substantive protections that far exceed ambiguous corporate pledges that boil down to "Trust me." With all due respect, I'm afraid that I don't.

edit: I think I'm going to have to look at the Wisconsin legislation and urge my representative here in Illinois to push for the same type of legislation._________________The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein
"Raccoons oscillate at 50Hz in Europe." - FAWBOTS
"I'm not sure I'm up for orgy scrabble parties" - Female Friend